I'm willing to give it a chance. I trust Peter Jackson to do things right.

That being said here, how many people here are upset with the visual presentation for the 48 fps who also complain about other visual presentations (too much CGI and 3D).

Click to expand...

It's not the same - even the 3D which I rail against regularly. Even with 3D, it still looks like a movie. This isn't a case of trying to adjust to anything "new" and "scary". This is a case where, in a quantifiable manner, a technological advance is actually making something worse in people's opinion. I don't care for 3D but that's because I don't enjoy it. I still acknowledge that 3D movies still look like "movies", and a side benefit is the 2D version often ends up being more vivid, colorful, and detailed (which is ironic since 3D usually looks washed out and blurry to a lot of people). CGI is only an issue if it's poorly done, really. This move to the faster FPS is fundamentally changing how the movie looks, and not to the better.

There were people who thought back in the 1960s that video was a far superior look to film. You don't hear that much anymore. The fact it was shot mostly on video (with 16-mm exteriors) is why we'll never see classic-era Doctor Who on Blu-ray. Or All in the Family, for that matter. Now we have a new format that is making film look like video and it cheapens the experience.

There's also another issue here. The Hobbit doesn't really count in this too much because it's based on very strong source material (translation: even Owe Boll could not f--- it up), but even so, I'd rather filmmakers concentrate on the story, the cast, the characters, than spending time reinventing the wheel. The Hunger Games' huge success this past few week shows you don't need big gimmicks like 3D to get people to go to the movies. That whole argument that "oooh they need 3D or a million FPS to get people to buy tickets" is an outright lie and you have your proof courtesy Miss Katniss and Co.

The Hobbit could be done in Claymation and make $500 million, so it'll be a hit regardless what people think of the presentation. At least that's the theory. Back in 2002 I'd have sworn on a stack of Bibles that a Star Trek movie was a guaranteed hit, too. But Nemesis was sunk was a groundswell of negative word of mouth, and just because Jackson and Tolkien's name is on it doesn't make The Hobbit immune. Enough people get annoyed by the new FPS, it's going to cause a problem.

The key will be people's responses to further preview showings. Maybe this was a fluke. Maybe if they show a fully finished excerpt, or fix a setting somewhere, people will go "OK, that works". If so, great. But a repeat of what we just saw at, say, San Diego ComicCon, and Jackson might as well release the thing right to Blu-ray...

...but I do trust PJ to figure out what works and what doesn't -- when push comes to shove he'll do what's best for the film even it means admitting he made a mistake.

Click to expand...

Unless he's so far committed to it that he can't back out.

By the way one thing I hope folks are noticing, and it will happen when the video production comes out too. All this debate over the technology - with people hating it and a few people loving it (sorry, I'm seeing a majority opinion against so far) - is completely overshadowing discussion over the actual content. I've seen very little discussion over whether the 10 minutes is any good or not as far as being a dramatic presentation. If the same holds true when the complete video production is released later this year, then Jackson will have indeed frakked it up because it'll become about the tech and not about the actual story and the adaptation. I hope that doesn't happen as it would make for a sad coda to the Lord of the Rings films.

BTW you'll notice I've stopped using the term "film" or "movie" when referring to The Hobbit; it's now "video production". As the term "soap opera effect" has now taken hold and is being used quite a bit to refer to the resolution issue, I figure there's room for another neologism.

Interesting... I'd been wondering how the hell they were going to manage to drag it out to two whole big long epics... Though I still wonder *why*...

Click to expand...

You mean apart from money?
This is pretty much the only other thing they can "film" in Middle-Earth (they don't have the rights to the Silmarillion or the Unfinished Tales), so they are going to stretch it out as long as possible.

...but I do trust PJ to figure out what works and what doesn't -- when push comes to shove he'll do what's best for the film even it means admitting he made a mistake.

Click to expand...

Unless he's so far committed to it that he can't back out.

Click to expand...

Besides dumping Stuart Townsend after filming began, Jackson scrapped several weeks of work on the Battle of Helm's Deep when he decided that Arwen shouldn't be there, and then there were extensive reshoots in early 2002. If the past is any guide, Jackson has no problem throwing work out and starting over.

The one place that Jackson really needed a reshoot that he didn't do was in the battle at the Towers of the Teeth where he superimposed a cave troll over Sauron. The problem is that Viggo was bathed in light on set (since Sauron was glowy) and he was acting in reaction to what was scripted to be there -- Sauron -- not what ultimately ended up being there -- a cave troll. However, I think by mid-2003, when Jackson realized that ending with an Aragorn/Sauron battle, was not the way to go, it would have been too difficult to do a reshoot.

I just hope Jackson doesn't screw things up with his ego. His record since the trilogy hasn't exactly been impressive. The only good thing he's been part of is being a producer for District 9.

The only reason The Hobbit is two films is because of money. That's it. The book itself is less than 300 pages long. It should be one movie and I wish it was. Hopefully they can add some good new stuff in there. Bt he's also the same director who decided that a 90-minute film like King Kong should be a three-hour plus "epic." 45 minutes on a fucking boat to get to Skull Island should tell you a lot about how he makes films...

Besides dumping Stuart Townsend after filming began, Jackson scrapped several weeks of work on the Battle of Helm's Deep when he decided that Arwen shouldn't be there, and then there were extensive reshoots in early 2002. If the past is any guide, Jackson has no problem throwing work out and starting over.

Click to expand...

That is true, but in this case it would mean refilming the entire picture if the way he shot it is not compatible with "acceptable" showing at 24 fps (sort of like how many have reported that 2-D versions of movies shown with 3-D projectors look dark and muddy. I saw that first hand when I attended a 2-D screening of Harry Potter Deathly Hallows 2 and it looked like crap.)

I didn't much care for the "suck it up" attitude Jackson displayed in his response to the critics. I think I'm gonna just say screw the Hobbit now, regardless.

I just hope Jackson doesn't screw things up with his ego. His record since the trilogy hasn't exactly been impressive. The only good thing he's been part of is being a producer for District 9.

The only reason The Hobbit is two films is because of money. That's it. The book itself is less than 300 pages long. It should be one movie and I wish it was. Hopefully they can add some good new stuff in there. Bt he's also the same director who decided that a 90-minute film like King Kong should be a three-hour plus "epic." 45 minutes on a fucking boat to get to Skull Island should tell you a lot about how he makes films...

Click to expand...

I'm surprised we haven't heard more from the Tolkien diehards (as well as the Tolkien family) over this. There was hell to pay when Jackson cut Tom Bombadil from the trilogy and parachuted in some odds and ends from Silmarillion. Here he appears to be likely to make some major changes to the book (I don't recall various LOTR characters being in the original, for example) in order to stretch it out, and at least as far as I've seen people are being silent about it. If anything I expected to see some purists* rubbing their hands with glee over the PR black-eye the film just got.

Alex

*Not meant in a derogatory sense; I just didn't want to use "diehards" again.

Actually, the stuff that Jackson is adding is mostly there in the background already. In the original story of The Hobbit, Gandalf leaves to help the wise drive out the Necromancer, which is really just an excuse to get him out of the way so Bilbo can grow. The later appendices and Silmarillion show how Gandalf and the White Council gather together to decide what to do about the Necromancer, whom they suspect is Sauron, and they decide to take action and drive him out.

As for LotR characters, there is no reason to think that Legolas isn't present when the Dwarves are captures. It's his dad who takes them, after all. And Saruman and Galadriel are, as mentioned above, part of the White Council.

Bombadil turns it into a musical. Renaissance Faire meets Cop Rock. Anyone expecting to see Bombadil was pretty much on glue.

Bombadil was cut from the cartoon as well, and for all the complaints that project received, I don't recall the lack of Bombadil being one of them.

Also, you might as well have said "cut Tom Bombadil from FOTR", because it's not like he's a factor in the other books.

Allyn Gibson said:

The one place that Jackson really needed a reshoot that he didn't do was in the battle at the Towers of the Teeth where he superimposed a cave troll over Sauron. The problem is that Viggo was bathed in light on set (since Sauron was glowy) and he was acting in reaction to what was scripted to be there -- Sauron -- not what ultimately ended up being there -- a cave troll.

Click to expand...

Viggo isn't bathed in light during the fight with the troll. The scene with the light on him is before that, just prior to "for Frodo", as the Eye of Sauron seems to be speaking. Apparently physical Sauron was supposed to be there but was replaced by the Eye of Sauron.

The one place that Jackson really needed a reshoot that he didn't do was in the battle at the Towers of the Teeth where he superimposed a cave troll over Sauron. The problem is that Viggo was bathed in light on set (since Sauron was glowy) and he was acting in reaction to what was scripted to be there -- Sauron -- not what ultimately ended up being there -- a cave troll.

Click to expand...

Viggo isn't bathed in light during the fight with the troll. The scene with the light on him is before that, just prior to "for Frodo", as the Eye of Sauron seems to be speaking. Apparently physical Sauron was supposed to be there but was replaced by the Eye of Sauron.

Click to expand...

Parts of this scene are on the DVD. I lean closer to being a purist than an adaptationist, but even so this might just have worked. It would have provided a great cinematic bookend to the scene of Elendil and Isildur facing Sauron in the prologue. And, even though it is impossible according to the books, Sauron's "fair form" of Annatar looked darned cool.

Parts of this scene are on the DVD. I lean closer to being a purist than an adaptationist, but even so this might just have worked. It would have provided a great cinematic bookend to the scene of Elendil and Isildur facing Sauron in the prologue. And, even though it is impossible according to the books, Sauron's "fair form" of Annatar looked darned cool.

Click to expand...

Watching Jackson's trilogy all in one go, it's clear that Jackson is building toward the Aragorn/Sauron throwdown.

Time and again, Aragorn fears following the same path as Isildur and suffering from the same weaknesses. Arwen says to Aragorn, "You will confront Sauron, and you will defeat him." She doesn't seem to mean it in a "Your armies will clash and you'll emerge victorious" sort of way, either.

In the context of the films, Aragorn meeting Sauron in single combat would have worked. Yes, it's different than the books, but in my opinion it's a good sort of different. It's where Jackson's story was heading.

Sauron's absence isn't as notable when watching Return of the King alone, but if watching all three together there's something weird and unsatisfying about Aragorn's Final Boss being a Cave Troll.

Interesting. 48fps. I'm curious how that will translate to home viewing. 1080p hi-def still operates at 30fps. True, they're experimenting with 50 and 60 fps standards for the future, but probably won't be ready for prime-time any time soon. If the film relies on the higher frame rate, it may loose something when it hits BluRay. I'm genuinely curious how this is going to look in theaters.

Click to expand...

Well, yes, they'd have to add something to the blu-ray spec to handle 48fps at 1080p, but you make it sound like it's more of an issue than it really is. Plug in an Xbox with the latest Call of Duty and it'll send 1080p at 60fps to your screen.

...but I do trust PJ to figure out what works and what doesn't -- when push comes to shove he'll do what's best for the film even it means admitting he made a mistake.

Click to expand...

Unless he's so far committed to it that he can't back out.

By the way one thing I hope folks are noticing, and it will happen when the video production comes out too. All this debate over the technology - with people hating it and a few people loving it (sorry, I'm seeing a majority opinion against so far) - is completely overshadowing discussion over the actual content. I've seen very little discussion over whether the 10 minutes is any good or not as far as being a dramatic presentation. If the same holds true when the complete video production is released later this year, then Jackson will have indeed frakked it up because it'll become about the tech and not about the actual story and the adaptation. I hope that doesn't happen as it would make for a sad coda to the Lord of the Rings films.

BTW you'll notice I've stopped using the term "film" or "movie" when referring to The Hobbit; it's now "video production". As the term "soap opera effect" has now taken hold and is being used quite a bit to refer to the resolution issue, I figure there's room for another neologism.

Alex

Click to expand...

Oh boy. Do you realize that what you seem to be objecting to doesn't even have anything to do with film inherently? If someone really wanted to, they could record 48 fps on actual film. There have been plenty of films shot digitally in the past few years at 24fps that you are probably ok with.

A sad coda to the LOTR films? You realize that those movies pushed the tech envelope as much as anything. Somehow their adaptation and story seems to have satisfied your standards despite the time they spent mo-capping Andy Serkis and rendering computer animations into the thing.

How exactly is using a camera you don't like to film things going to fuck up the story?